Retention of seized property survives where recorded reasons support proceeds of crime, while stayed investigation periods are excluded from limitatio...
Specified income of Baddi Barotiwala Nalagarh Development Authority receives conditional tax exemption, retrospectively covering its designated assess...
Specified development authority income receives retrospective tax exemption, subject to non-commercial activity, unchanged income sources, and return-...
Unified Brand India framework introduces voluntary Trust Mark certification and funding support for export branding, packaging and global promotional ...
Origin Declaration authentication governs preferential tariff claims under India-UK CETA, requiring a validated reference number before import clearan...
Separate assessment orders for different years remain valid when distinct notices and hearing opportunities prevent prejudice from combined proceeding...
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders, directing refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner. The court held that interception and seizure of electronic goods on account of a mismatch between the vehicle number in transport documents and the actual conveyance, coupled with non-updation of the e-way bill by the transporter, did not establish mens rea or tax evasion by the petitioner. Physical verification revealed concordant tax-invoice entries and serial numbers with the seized items, and the petitioner had notified the change of vehicle in its reply. In absence of discrepancy in goods or serial numbers, proceedings under section 129(3) could not be sustained against the petitioner.
The HC allowed the petition and quashed the impugned orders, directing refund of the amount deposited by the petitioner. The court held that interception and seizure of electronic goods on account of a mismatch between the vehicle number in transport documents and the actual conveyance, coupled with non-updation of the e-way bill by the transporter, did not establish mens rea or tax evasion by the petitioner. Physical verification revealed concordant tax-invoice entries and serial numbers with the seized items, and the petitioner had notified the change of vehicle in its reply. In absence of discrepancy in goods or serial numbers, proceedings under section 129(3) could not be sustained against the petitioner.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
